Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:00:01.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of the gut microflora on protein synthesis in liver and jejunal mucosa in chicks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. Muramatsu ,
M. E. Coates ,
D. Hewitt ,
D. N. Salter  and
P. J. Garlick
T. Muramatsu
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, BerkshireRG2 9AT
M. E. Coates
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, BerkshireRG2 9AT
D. Hewitt
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, BerkshireRG2 9AT
D. N. Salter
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, BerkshireRG2 9AT
P. J. Garlick
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, 4 St Pancras Way, London NW1 2PE
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Protein synthesis in liver and jejunal mucosa was measured in 19-d-old germ-free (GF) and conventional (CV) chicks fed on a semi-purified casein–gelatin (SCG) diet using a massive-dose single injection of [U-14C]phenylalanine. The effect of subsequent feeding for 9 d either a nitrogen-free (NF) diet or an NF diet supplemented with L-methionine (5 g/kg) and L-arginine hydrochloride (2 g/kg) (MA diet) was investigated in both types of chick.

2. In the liver, apart from the amount of DNA, the values for wet weight, protein, RNA, fractional synthesis rate (FSR) and the amount of protein synthesized were reduced after feeding the NF diet and, to a lesser extent, the MA diet. Except that the total amount of liver DNA was higher in the CV chicks than in their GF counterparts (P < 0·01), no environmental effect was significant. When expressed on a unit body-weight basis, liver weight, protein, RNA and DNA were significantly higher in the CV than in the GF chicks.

3. In the jejunal mucosa, the values for wet weight, protein and RNA tended to be reduced after the NF treatment but increased after the MA treatment. Mucosal DNA and the amount of protein synthesized (μg/mm per d) were significantly reduced after the NF diet but were less affected after the MA diet. Mucosal protein FSR and the amount of protein synthesized per mg RNA were significantly reduced after both dietary treatments. No difference was found among dietary treatments in the amount of protein synthesized per mg DNA in jejunal mucosa. Mucosal DNA was significantly higher in the CV chicks and the reverse was true for mucosal protein: DNA.

4. It was suggested that the increased protein synthesis in jejunal mucosa and possibly in liver on supplementation of an NF diet with methionine and arginine would partly, ifnot completely, account for the N-sparing effect of these amino acids.

5. Although the protein: DNA value was smaller in CV chicks, the FSR and the amount ofprotein synthesized tended to be higher than in their GF counterparts irrespective of nutritional status. This might imply that protein degradation rate is greater in the CV state.

Type
Paper on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , May 1983 , pp. 453 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Cheeseman, G. C. & Fuller, R. (1966). J. appl. Bact. 29, 596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, M. E. (editor) (1968). In The Germ-free Animal in Research, p. 79. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E., Fuller, R., Harrison, G. F., Lev, M. & Suffolk, S. F. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R. H. & Bird, F. H. (1973). Poult. Sci. 52, 2276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, R. (1968). In The Germ-free Animal in Research, p. 37 [Coates, M. E., editor]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garlick, P. J., McNurlan, M. A. & Preedy, V. R. (1980). Biochem. J. 192, 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, K. W. & Myers, A. (1965). Nature, Lond. 206, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, M. H., Cullen, J. & Dowling, R. H. (1972). Clin. Sci. 43, 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, H. A. & Bruckner-Kardoss, E. (1961). Acta Anat. 44, 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 193, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNurlan, M. A. & Garlick, P. J. (1981). Am. J. Physiol. Endocr. Metab. 4, E238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNurlan, M. A., Tomkins, A. M. & Garlick, P. J. (1979). Biochem. J. 178, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millward, D. J., Bates, P. C. & Rosochacki, S. (1981). Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 21, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, H. N. & Fleck, A. (1969). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism, vol. 3, p. 424 [Munro, H. N., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Muramatsu, T. & Okumura, J. (1979). Nutr. Rep. int. 20, 709.Google Scholar
Okumura, J., Hewitt, D. & Coates, M. E. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyniers, J. A., Wagner, H., Luckey, T. D. & Gordon, H. A. (1960). In Lobund Reports, no. 3, p. 57 [Ervin, R. F.Gordon, H. A. and Wagner, M., editors]. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Rolls, B. A., Turvey, A. & Coates, M. E. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N., Coates, M. E. & Hewitt, D. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visek, W. J. (1974). J. agric. Fd Chem. 22, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, K. S. & Newton, W. L. (1959). Am. J. Physiol. 197, 717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterlow, J. C., Garlick, P. J. & Millward, D. J. (1978). Protein Turnover in Mammalian Tissues and in the Whole Body, p. 529Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Yokogoshi, H. & Yoshida, A. (1979). J. Nutr. 109, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokota, H. & Coates, M. E. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 47, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimber, A. & Visek, W. J. (1972). Am. J. Physiol. 223, 1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar